State concisely what do you understand by the Pious Obligation of a Hindu son to pay the debts of his deceased father, when no property is inherited from the father.
Find the question and answer of Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. [State concisely what do you understand by the Pious Obligation of a Hindu son to pay the debts of his deceased father, when no property is inherited from the father.]
Question: State concisely what do you understand by the Pious Obligation of a Hindu son to pay the debts of his deceased father, when no property is inherited from the father. [DJS 1980]Find the question and answer of Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. [State concisely what do you understand by the Pious Obligation of a Hindu son to pay the debts of his deceased father, when no property is inherited from the father.]AnswerThe system of the Hindu Undivided Family is a unique feature and the...
Question: State concisely what do you understand by the Pious Obligation of a Hindu son to pay the debts of his deceased father, when no property is inherited from the father. [DJS 1980]
Find the question and answer of Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. [State concisely what do you understand by the Pious Obligation of a Hindu son to pay the debts of his deceased father, when no property is inherited from the father.]
Answer
The system of the Hindu Undivided Family is a unique feature and the binding thread which is holding the family together is the concept of Pious Obligation. This obligation includes both spiritual as well as material aspects and makes the heir liable for their required spiritual duties, which by default include paying off the debts of the deceased father, grandfather, great grandfather.
A son is under a pious obligation to discharge his father's debts out of his ancestral property as per Hindu Law. He has this obligation even if he had not benefited from the debts, only if those debts are not avyavahrika. The liability of the son to pay the debts of his father is not personal, it is limited only to the son's interest in the coparcenary property.
The liability of Hindu sons in a Mitakshara coparcenary to discharge the debts of the father, the Karta, which are not tainted with immorality is based on the pious obligation of the sons which continues to exist even after the death of the father and which does not come to an end as a result of the partition of joint family property unless a provision has been made for the payment of just debts of the father.
Therefore, even though, the father's power to discharge his debt by selling the share of his sons in the property may no longer exist as a result of partition, the right of the judgment-creditor, who has obtained a decree against the father, to seize the erstwhile coparcenary property remains unaffected and undiminished because of the pious obligations of the sons.
In the case of Ram Saran v. Bhagwan, AIR 1929 All 775, it was held that the liability of the son does not arise post the partition of the property. In the case of V.D. Deshpande v. S.K.D. Kulkarni, 1978 AIR 1791, where the father borrowed a loan from the government for improving his joint family lands, there was a partition among the members of the joint family. And no provision was made for the repayment of the debt. The court held that the joint family property in the hand of the son would remain liable for the payment of the loan. The son was held liable under the doctrine of pious obligation.
The Supreme Court has decided two important cases, namely, Sideheshwar Mukerjee v. Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, AIR 1953 SC 497 and Pannalal v. Mst. Narayani, AIR 1952 SC 172, on the doctrine of the pious obligation of the sons to pay the father's debt. The Court held that under Mitakshara Law the son's obligation to pay the debt is not personal which can be said to be separate from the property received from the father. The liability is confined to the extent of the share, he has inherited from him, The liability is on the son in every condition whether he is major or minor, whether the father is alive or dead. The only condition is that the debt should not have been contracted for immoral purposes.
The liability to pay the father's debt is not dependent upon the fact that the father has taken the debt in the capacity of Karta of the joint Hindu family or the capacity of the father. The basis of liability is religious and is available against the sons only. The liability continues even after the death of the father and also after the partition has been effected between the father and sons.
After obtaining a decree against the sons, it can be executed against the undivided interest of the sons. Whenever a creditor obtains a decree against the father, he can get it executed against the father's share or his sons' shares. Strictly, whenever a decree is obtained by the creditor on a promissory note against the father and the sons were not made parties to the suit, still, the decree can be executed also against the interest of the sons.
In Pannalal v. Mst. Narayani, AIR 1952 SC, the Supreme Court laid down that a son will be liable to pay the pre-partition debt of the father even after the partition, provided the debt was not Avyavaharik and arrangement for its payment was not made at the time of partition. Any decree, which has been obtained against the father after partition, cannot be executed against the son concerning the property which they got, in the partition.
But if the sons after the death of the father have been made parties to the suit in the capacity of legal heirs and the decree has been obtained only for the property of the deceased father then in the proceedings of execution of the decree Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code will be applied and the Court may consider all those questions which are related to the property, got by the sons on partition and also the sons will have the right to claim that the property in their possession after partition could not be held liable for the payment of the debt of the father.
In Keshav Nandan v. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1977 Pat 185, the Patna High Court has held that the sons are liable to pay debts contracted by the father before partition unless there was an arrangement for payment of these debts at the time when the partition took place.
This view was again supported by Gujarat High Court in Jayanti Lal v. Shrikant, AIR 1980 Guj 67. The Court held that the doctrine of pious obligation applies to the debts contracted by the father before partition but it does not apply to debts incurred after partition. The sons, even after the partition, are under pious obligation to pay off the debt incurred by their father before the partition.
Where a money decree is obtained by a creditor against the Hindu father before the partition of the joint family property, the right of the pre-partition creditor to seize the property of the erstwhile joint family in the execution of his decree is not dependent upon the father's power to alienate the share of his sons but on the principle of pious obligation on the part of the sons to discharge the debt of the father. The pious obligation continues to exist even though the father's power to alienate may end as a result of partition.